Comments on: Still Standing – The Stonewall Jackson Storyhttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/
A Journal of the Digitization of a Civil War BattleSat, 10 Dec 2016 00:47:41 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Michael Aubrechthttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3024
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:35:08 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3024“I want the comments feature here to be more like Switzerland and less like Belgium.” = So there will be chocolate… but no waffles. Got it. :)

]]>By: Harry Smeltzerhttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3023
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:11:06 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3023Sorry for my heavy handedness, but I hope you see the reason for it. As I said, I don’t think it’s either of your intents, but these things have a way of getting out of hand. I want the comments feature here to be more like Switzerland and less like Belgium.

]]>By: Kevin Levinhttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3022
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:48:12 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3022Thanks for the warning Harry (LOL), but I was simply responding to a point that was made in response to your post. I thought that is what the comments section was for. If my comment sounds like a flare-up then I sincerely apologize.

]]>By: Michael Aubrechthttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3021
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:29:24 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3021Whoa Harry, did not think you’d think that a serious tone. My apologies. I added the smiley face to reinforce the jest. Did not mean to sink to that level. Mr. Levine knows my feelings on the matter. It’s all good my friend.

]]>By: Harry Smeltzerhttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3020
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:25:28 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3020You both got your shots in, NOW THAT’S IT! I’ve never deleted any non-spam comments from this blog, but I will if the tone doesn’t change. Nobody will know (I hope) when I do it.

This has turned into a fine example of why some bloggers don’t enable comments.

]]>By: Michael Aubrechthttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3019
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:13:20 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3019I see your points Harry. I just thought the Christian-angle was missing. I think that I represent a demographic that ‘knew’ what I was going to get out of the film before I even saw it. And Kevin, the ONLY good thing about being laid up is that I won’t have to listen to you at the Round Table meeting tonight (oops… did I type that out loud. Sorry I’ll await your reply over at my blog :)

I appreciate your sentiments regarding my response, Kevin. While I’m sure it’s not your intent, I don’t want to see this turn into one of those ugly comments feature arguments that flare up in the blogosphere. It has never happened on Bull Runnings, and I want to keep it that way.

]]>By: Kevin Levinhttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3017
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:55:28 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3017I am so sick and tired of this secular/religious dichotomy that gets floated around in this context. Regardless of whether the film was intended for a secular or religious audience does not negate the fact that claims are made about the past. Those claims could be analyzed in terms of how well they inspire or whether they are historically sound. Your response to Aubrecht hits the nail on the head. It’s ashame that they couldn’t publish your review in its entirety.

Thanks for taking the time to coment, and I hope your post-op is progressing well.

I guess I’ll have to take your word for the filmakers’ intent. Other than a statement on the DVD case – “Now, his legacy as a man of resolute Christian character is captured in this revealing documentary” – I didn’t find a clear definition of the “non-secular” focus. Your statement “If you are a believer, or searching for examples of how faith impacts people, ‘Still Standing’ will be just what you are looking for” seems to imply that if you don’t find this film to be what you are looking for, you are either a non-believer, or not searching for those examples, or both.

With the exception of the paradox of Jackson in the Valley vs. Jackson in the Seven Days, the other paradoxes introduced but unexplored in the film all seem to be of a non-secular or moral nature. (I didn’t manufacture these, BTW, all I did was connect the dots between the evidence presented in the film.) Did Jackson “know what love was”, or didn’t he? Was he abnormally motivated by personal ambition? Was he a lonely loner, or was his childhood shaped by friendships? Why was he willfully disobedient to the laws of Virginia when it came to educating blacks, but subservient when it came to the legality of slavery? Is the exploration of these contradictions somehow the domain of either the secular world, or the non-secular world? Is there absolutely no overlap?

As I said in the review, “[p]erhaps a case can be made that for his time and community Jackson was in fact progressive in his views on and treatment of slaves and free blacks.” This film does not really try to make that case. If such an attempt was not in accordance with the film makers’ vision, I think maybe it should have been. Perhaps how Jackson’s faith, as he practiced it, and how it affected his views on slavery, and how it differed or was similar to how others in the wide world practiced their faith, would have been instructive for believers and non-believers as well. I don’t think this is a case of “either/or”.

While the review of this DVD did present challenges to me, its non-secular nature, as you describe it, was not one of them. And I’ll repeat, whether or not this film is “for you” depends on what you’re looking for.

]]>By: Michael Aubrechthttps://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/still-standing-%e2%80%93-the-stonewall-jackson-story/#comment-3015
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:06:46 +0000http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/?p=695#comment-3015Hi Harry. I’m actually surprised to see this film being reviewed in such a ‘secular publication.’ I am sure that presented a challenge to you. It is good to see everyone chatting about ‘Still Standing.’ HOWEVER, one issue that people are continuing to neglect in their discussions (and I made a point of putting in my review for the Free Lance-Star) is that this is a CHRISTIAN MOVIE made by a CHRISTIAN MOVIE COMPANY. Yes, it features familiar experts, but it’s ultimately created for a Christian audience to see the power of the Holy Spirit in a man’s heart and what that can do. This story (as presented in ‘SS’) is not about scholarship, or uncovering new ground-breaking factoids, it’s about witnessing for our Lord and Savior. I would bet that most (secular people) had never heard of the film company Franklin Springs Family Media or Director Ken Carpenter, yet they are the ‘DreamWorks’ of the Christian film realm and Ken has won more awards than Spielberg. So although I fully understand your comments, BUT I think everyone needs to keep the story and the movie in context. ‘SS’ tells of a fervently pious man who introduced those held in bondage to the pathway to eternal salvation. That’s it. Maybe they would have found it otherwise, but he did it and their souls were ultimately saved by it. It’s like “The Passion,’ you either ‘get it’ and its intent or you don’t. Still Standing teaches us about spreading the Good News of the Gospel to everyone, regardless of their status or social standing. I would never expect someone to analyze a lot of my work, including ‘The Southern Cross’ – which is a devotional’ as anything other than an inspirational testament for Christ using empowering stories from the Civil War. Education AND enlightenment is possible. There is a difference in context though when it comes to secular and religious films. If you are a believer, or searching for examples of how faith impacts people, ‘Still Standing’ will be just what you are looking for. If you’re looking for the Holy Grail on the complex and contradictive life of Thomas Jackson that will satisfy both the Christian and academic world… keep wishing…that movie will never be made.